Makkot 13: ״יָשׁוּב״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged. There are three reasons that a person is flogged: 1) one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication). According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment. 2) One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven. 3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active. Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.

Makkot 12: כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have been discussing the laws of an accidental killer who is exiled to an ir miklat – a City of Refuge – which serves both as a punishment and as a haven of protection from the go’el ha-dam, the “blood avenger” who would otherwise kill him. What status does the go’el ha-dam have? Is the Torah sanctioning the murder of an accidental killer for reasons of revenge?

We discuss sanctuary cities and the social order therein.

Makkot 11: שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל דּוֹרָ

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Until when will an accidental killer be required to remain in exile in the City of Refuge?

The Torah is clear on this point. As taught in Sefer Bamidbar (35:25, 28), the killer must remain in the ir miklat until the death of the kohen gadol. The Mishna on our daf notes that this leads to an interesting custom – the mothers of the kohanim would supply food and clothing to those exiled killers so that they would not pray that the kohen would die – or, according to some versions, to encourage them to pray that the kohen would have a long life.

The Gemara asks why there would be any reason for the kohen’s mother to be concerned that the accidental killers would pray that her son would die when Sefer Mishlei (26:2) clearly teaches that a baseless curse will have no effect.

Makkot 10: מַאי קוֹלְטִין – מִמַּלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When describing the escape of an accidental killer to a City of Refuge, the Torah says that he will run to one of the cities and live (see Devarim 4:42). The Gemara on today’s daf understands that the idea that he will “live” implies an active life and not just avoidance of death at the hands of the “blood avenger.” Thus, we learn that when a student is exiled to an ir miklat, his teacher must accompany him there. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that when a teacher is exiled to an ir miklat, his students must go into exile with him, as well.

The Iyun Ya’akov suggests that although at first appearance we might think that a teacher brings his students with him because without the interaction of study his life would become bleak and void of meaning, this cannot be the case, since we do not find that the Torah requires other friends to join the accidental killer in exile. He suggests that this must be a punishment of sorts for the students who chose to study with a teacher whose morals must be lacking inasmuch as he became involved in this killing, albeit accidental.

Makkot 9: הא באוהב, והא בשונא

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, the Torah requires that someone who kills accidentally must exile himself to an ir miklat – a City of Refuge. What was the procedure for being accepted into an ir miklat? Where were these cities?

As the Rambam explains the Mishna on our daf, everyone who killed would run to one of these cities in order to protect himself from revenge at the hands of the go’el ha-dam – the relative who serves as a “blood avenger.” The perpetrator would be taken to trial and would either be found guilty and put to death, would be found innocent and set free, or declared an accidental killer and returned to the ir miklat in the company of two guards who would be charged with protecting him from the go’el ha-dam.

According to the Mishna, the biblical commandment to establish six cities of refuge (see Bamidbar 35:13-14) requiring three on each side of the Jordan River, was first fulfilled by Moshe (see Devarim 4:41) on the eastern side of the river.

Makkot 8: שלא ימכור ברחוק ויגאול בקרוב

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The second perek of Massekhet Makkot focuses on the punishment of galut – exile – for a person who killed his fellow accidentally (see Bamidbar 35:24-29 and Devarim 19:2-7).

According to the Mishna on our daf, any Jewish person may be sent into exile for accidentally killing his fellow; similarly, any Jewish person who is accidentally killed will cause the killer to be sent into exile.

We explore corporal punishment its history efficacy and current legal issues.

Makkot 7: מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

In Massekhet Sanhedrin and Massekhet Makkot we have been learning about the various punishments meted out by the beit din. In point of fact, how often was capital punishment carried out by the Jewish court system?

According to the Mishna on today’s daf if the Sanhedrin killed a single individual in the course of seven years, it was considered to be a destructive, or violent, beit din. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says that this is true if the court killed someone every 70 years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva claimed that had they been on the Sanhedrin (during the last 40 years of the Second Temple period the Sanhedrin no longer ruled on capital cases, so neither of them ever served as judges on the high court) no one would have ever been killed. In response Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said that such behavior would have led to a proliferation of murderers.

In his authoritative talmudic dictionary, 19th-century scholar Marcus Jastrow renders the word chovlanit, employed by the mishnah to describe a court that executes a prisoner once in 70 years, as not merely “destructive,” but rather “tyrannical,” noting that such a court “does not spare human lives.

Makkot 6: הרוג יציל! כשהרגו מאחוריו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

False plotting witnesses are liable only if the judgment has been pronounced, but the victim has not been executed, since the law is "do to them as they plotted to do to their brother", and not as they actually did to him. Logic would dictate that if the defendant has been executed, all the more so the false witnesses should be executed, now that they have caused an actual loss of life. However, there is an overriding rule that one cannot derive capital punishments by logic - only those that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah are to be followed.

What does the phrase "by the word of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the one who is to die be put to death" teach? That the law of three witnesses is the same as the law of two witnesses: to be established as false plotting witnesses, all three have to be established thus.

Makkot 5: מהו דתימא ליחוש לגמלא פרח

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Mishna on our daf offers a greater insight into the rules of edim zomemin – conspiring witnesses.

According to the Mishna we need the second group of witnesses to deny the edim zomemin themselves, and not simply negate their testimony. Thus, if the second group of witnesses come to court and insist that the testimony of the first witnesses cannot be true because the accused was with them at that time, or because they saw the incident and it happened differently than the way it was described by the first group of witnesses, then we discount the testimony.

Such witnesses are called edei hakḥashah – witnesses who refute testimony – and recognizing that there are different versions of the story we discount them both. Neither the accused nor the witnesses will be punished.

Makkot 4: לא מן השם הוא זה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

As we have learned, Massekhet Makkot opens with a discussion of edim zomemin – conspiring witnesses whose testimony will condemn the accused to receive punishment. Others come and testify that these witnesses were with them in another place at the time that the crime took place, proving that they could not have been at the scene of the incident. According to the Torah (see Sefer Devarim 19:15-21), the punishment for edim zomemin is that they will receive the punishment that would have been given to the defendant based on their testimony.

In the Mishna on our daf we find a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Hakhamim on this point. Rabbi Meir believes that these are two separate issues and that the edim zomemin will pay – if their testimony would have made the accused pay – and also receive lashes for their false testimony.

Makkot 3: לא תיתיב אכרעיך עד דמפרשת לה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Can a person make a condition that negates a Torah obligation?

One example that is brought by our dad is the case of ona’a (exploitative business practices).

According to the Torah (Lev 25:14, 17) business transactions must be fair and one side cannot take advantage of another. Thus, overcharging or underpaying is forbidden by the Torah, and the forbidden profits will need to be returned, or the transaction voided. What would be the halakha if someone said to his friend “I am selling this to you on the condition that the rule forbidding ona’a does not apply”?

Here we find a disagreement between Shmuel who permits such a condition, permitting the sale and Rav who insists that ona’a still applies.

We explore such situations.

Makkot 2: אין אומרים: יגלה זה תחתיו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in Massekhet Makkot deals with a situation of edim zomemin – false witnesses whose testimony will condemn the accused to receive punishment, even though they could not have been at the scene of the incident, given that others testify that these witnesses were with them in another place at the time that the crime took place.

According to the Torah (see Sefer Devarim 19:15-21), the punishment for edim zomemin is that they will receive the punishment that would have been given to the defendant based on their testimony.

Our Mishna teaches that this is not always the punishment that is given. In cases where the false testimony accused the defendant of something that would change his personal status – e.g., having questionable parenthood – we would not change the personal status of the edim zomemin, rather they would receive lashes as a punishment.

We get introduced to the concepts in this masechta.

Sanhedrin 113: זה ינחמנו ממעשנו

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 113

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf marks the end of Masechet Sanhedrin. At the very end of our daf, the rabbis share some words of wisdom. They teach that when a wicked person comes into the world, wrath comes into the world, based on Proverbs (18:3). When a wicked person is eliminated from the world, good enters the world (Proverbs 11:10).

When a righteous person passes from this world, evil enters the world (Isaiah 57:1). Then again, Genesis (5:29) teaches that when a righteous person comes into this world, good enters the world as well.

It makes sense that the rabbis wished to end our masechet with thoughts about the balance between what is good and what is bad. The past many dapim have been devoted to the execution of justice; how we should measure and deal with good and evil. At the very end of our daf, we the rabbis leave us with a sense of hope, particularly regarding those who are righteous. The lesson? Strive for and encourage righteousness.

Sanhedrin 112: מִי גָּרַם לָהֶם שֶׁיָּדוּרוּ בְּתוֹכָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 112

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In daf 111, we were introduced to a new Mishna. We learned about the Ir HaNidachas. a Jewish city where the majority of the population has turned to idol worship.

Some rabbis say that residents of such a city would not merit the World-to-Come even if they repent. Others claim that this opinion was removed from the historical text and that there were conditions which might allow residents to merit the World-to-Come.

We explore notions of collective punishment then and now.

Sanhedrin 111: דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין, דָּנִין וְסוֹקְלִין

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 111

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah states that the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas have no share in Olam ha'Ba.

Why should they have no share in Olam ha'Ba? The Mishnah earlier (43b) states that part of the process of Misas Beis Din is confession and repentance. Since the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas are put to death by Beis Din, they presumably must have repented immediately before their execution and thereby gained atonement! Moreover, Rava (47a) maintains that those who are killed by Beis Din achieve atonement even if they do not do Teshuvah. Why, then, do the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas have no share in Olam ha’Ba?

Sanhedrin 110: עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 110

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In 722 BCE Assyria invaded Israel, and the northern kingdom was conquered. Many of the people who lived in the northern kingdom were exiled, mainly to Assyria, Media, and Aram-Naharaim. Archaeological evidence suggests that they were eventually completely assimilated into these societies. Meanwhile, some alien populations — Cutha, Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim — were brought in to settle the northern kingdom, and those groups all ended up assimilating with each other and with the Israelites who remained in the north.

In 586 BCE the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar attacked the southern kingdom, and exiled much of that population to Babylon. Though many lost their Israelite identity in Babylon, plenty of them retained their connection to their heritage, and eventually returned to Israel and rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem. By that point the northern kingdom was lost. Today’s Jews stem from the people of Judah (thus, Judaism).

Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, in his book The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History, traces the global journey of the myth. From Ethiopia to China to the Americas, various communities have been identified—or have identified themselves—as descendants of the lost tribes. Benite demonstrates how the narrative was adapted to different political and cultural contexts, including Christian missionary endeavors and Jewish messianic movements.

We explore these ideas and the mythical river Sambatyon.

Sanhedrin 109: תּוּב, דַּאֲנָא מַצֵּילְנָא לָךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 109

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The wife of On Son of Pelet is not mentioned in the Bible. However, the midrash credits her for saving her husband’s life. After she saw that he had joined Korah and his company, who were rebelling against Moses and Aaron, she discouraged him from joining the band of malcontents. She saw the long-term effects of her husband joining the revolt. She knew that if On were to fight and lose he would suffer, and if he were to fight and win it would not benefit him greatly. To stop him from joining the revolt she inebriates him and places herself in an immodest position to deter anyone from entering their tent. Her strong character allowed her to perform an “unbecoming” act to achieve a higher goal: rescuing her home and family.

We explore the Korach story and this devoted wife.

Sanhedrin 108: לֹא נִתְגָּאוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל גַּלְגַּל הָעַיִן

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 108

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf spells out the following litany

The people of the Generation of the Flood have no share in the World to Come, but on the other hand they will not have to stand in Judgment, having already been punished. “My spirit shall not contend ever more concerning man” implies neither judgment nor the spirit of God.

The people of the Generation of Dispersion – the Tower of Babel – have no share in the World to Come, since God “dispersed them” in this world and “scattered” for the World to Come.

The people of Sodom have no share in the World to Come, since they were “wicked” (this world) and “sinful” (World to Come).

The people of the Generation of the Wilderness have no share in the World to Come, since they shall be “consumed” and “there they shall die” - these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and applies to them “Gather to Me My devout ones, those who sealed a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”

We explore the flood generation and Noah’s character.

Sanhedrin 107: בְּחָנֵנִי ה׳ וְנַסֵּנִי

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 107

To download, click/tap here: PDF

To resolve the statement "Anyone who says that David sinned..." with the plain meaning of biblical texts requires examining the apparent contradiction between certain theological positions and the explicit accounts of David's actions in the Bible.

The biblical text plainly states several instances where David committed actions characterized as sins:

His adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2-4)

His arrangement of Uriah's death (2 Samuel 11:14-17)

His census of Israel against God's will (2 Samuel 24:10)

Perhaps most definitively, the text directly states in 2 Samuel 12:13: "David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David, 'The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.'"

We explore various Rabbinic approaches to understand David's actions while maintaining his revered status.

Sanhedrin 106: הָרְגוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל [בַּחֶרֶב] אֶל חַלְלֵיהֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 106

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The verse says that the Jews killed the kings of Midyan and killed Bilam by sword.

Rabbi Yochanan explains that Bilam had gone to Midyan to collect his reward for his advice, which killed 24,000 Jews. Mar Zutra bar Tuvia quotes Rav saying that this illustrates the common saying that “the camel went to get horns but ended up with his existing ears cut off.” Similarly, Bilam went to collect money, and ended up losing his life.

The verse says that the Jews killed Bilam the magician. Rabbi Yochanan explains that Bilam was originally a prophet, but ended up being just a magician, since he violated Hashem’s command.

We continue our exploration into the ballad stories and their reception.